President Bush, asserting today that the violence which was “spiralling out of control’’ in Iraq “is beginning to subside,’’ complained that Democratic congressional leaders are threatening to undermine a surge in U.S. military force that is beginning to have an impact.

“The reinforcements are having an impact, and as more reinforcements go in they will have a greater impact,’’ Bush said at an American Legion hall in Fairfax, Va., ringing a rhetorical clock bell that the White House is chiming. “It has now been 64 days since I requested the Congress pass emergency funding for these troops…. Instead of improving that vital funding, the Democrat leadership in Congress has spent the last 64 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops.’’

Two months into a standoff over new spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House insisted today that it wants to meet with but will not negotiate with Democratic congressional leaders attempting to attach timelines for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to a supplemental spending bill.

“This is not a negotiation,’’ Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said this morning. This is a chance, she said, for the Democrats to show “whether or not they will cut off funds completely’’ in the midst of a debate over “arbitrary timelines’’ that Bush vows to veto.

Bush at American Legion in Fairfax, Va. Tribune photo by Pete Souza.

“The president has said very clearly what he will sign, which is a bill that funds the troops, that doesn’t tie the hands of the commanders,’’ Perino said. “The Democrats know they cannot override the president’s veto.’’

The House has passed a $124-billion spending bill that requires combat troops to withdraw from Iraq by the fall of 2008. The Senate has passed a $122-billion bill setting a goal of withdrawl by spring of 2008. A final bill must be approved in negotiations between the two before the president receives it.

So the White House is inviting Democratic leaders to “come down’’ next week and talk about the $100-billion supplemental war budget that Bush has been seeking for the fight in Iraq and Afganistan. But if they think they are going to negotiate over timelines, Perino said, they are mistaken.

What is the point of a meeting if the White House is not willing to negotiate, she was asked. “Maybe they need to hear again from the president why he thinks it is foolish to set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal,’’ she said. “The ‘clean bill’’ for war spending, she said, “is a red line.’’

In the meantime, the White House says, the Pentagon is notifying Congress today that it must transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to help pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that could be jeopardized by a delay in spending. This follows a $1.7 billion transfer last month.

If the delay continues into May, the president has warned before and warned again today, the Army may have to consider delaying training for active-duty troops, delay the replacement and repair of equipment at military depots – and possibly require troops already deployed abroad to serve longer stints for lack of ready reinforcements.

“The longer Congress delays, the worst the impact on the men and women of the armed forces will be,’’ Bush said today, reiterating a timetable for potential cutbacks that he had outlined last week.

“The bottom line is this,’’ Bush said at the Legion Hall today. “Congress’ failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our loved ones could wait longer for members of their families to return from the front lines… This is unacceptable.’’

Democratic leaders are using a funding bill to “make a political statement,’’ Bush said, calling on leaders to approve a final bill quickly, so that he can veto it. “The Democrats who pass these bills know that I will veto them, and they know the veto will be sustained, yet they continue to pursue this legislation, and as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field.’’

Comments

f the delay continues into May, the president has warned before and warned again today, the Army may have to consider delaying training for active-duty troops, delay the replacement and repair of equipment at military depots – and possibly require troops already deployed abroad to serve longer stints for lack of ready reinforcements.Note to W: All these things are already happening because our armed forces have been used and abused for the last 4 years.

Posted by: nffcnnr | Apr 10, 2007 10:21:32 AM&nbsp

*If the delay continues into May, the president has warned before and warned again today, the Army may have to consider delaying training for active-duty troops, delay the replacement and repair of equipment at military depots – and possibly require troops already deployed abroad to serve longer stints for lack of ready reinforcements.* Note to W: All of these things are already happening because our armed forces have been used and abused for the last 4 years.

Posted by: nffcnnr | Apr 10, 2007 10:23:28 AM&nbsp

I don't see what the problem is for Bush to sign this bill. Why not bolster world confidence about US intentions and give the Iraqis hope that they get their country back? Bush gets his play money (what he seems to think of all our tax dollars), a goal is set and maybe a positive attitude will start to develop on all fronts. Maybe Bush's polling numbers would even go up. New bills can cover events in the future.

Bush's rhetoric reminds me of those constant school referendums to raise our property taxes. We hear the cries about how terrible we are to hold the futures of our precious children hostage by not voting for it, and right after it passes, the superintendent(s) get a big raise on their already six-figure salary.

Posted by: DD | Apr 10, 2007 10:30:12 AM&nbsp

I thought we wouldn't be able to see if the "new strategy" was working for at least 6 months. When did that change?

Posted by: Joe | Apr 10, 2007 10:32:33 AM&nbsp

Acuse este mono estupido!

Ahora!

Posted by: Nacho Libre | Apr 10, 2007 10:39:38 AM&nbsp

Working? By what standard?

Reported deaths of Iraqi civilians and security forces were higher in March than they have been since September 2006.

The number of coalition casualties has held basically steady for the last 3 months. 86, 84, 82. We're already up to 51 for April and it's only the 10th.

Posted by: Tony | Apr 10, 2007 10:54:39 AM&nbsp

The President of the United States is holding our Armed Forces hostage to his failed policies. He is saying to Congress, in effect, I have the power to undertrain and underequip the military if you don't do exactly what I want.

His chosen instrument to carry out this failed policy, General Patraes, is sounding more and more like General Westmoreland during the Vietnam War, seeing light at the end of a tunnel that is in truth endless and lightless.

LBJ, when it became clear that Vietnam was a quagmire, stepped aside to help end that war. Alas, the present occupant of the White House is unwilling to do the same. History will condemn him for his foolishness and arrogance.

Posted by: michael silverstein | Apr 10, 2007 11:04:23 AM&nbsp

If Little Georgie and Mr.Dick say it's working,it must be.Is there any reason to doubt these two stand up guys?

I must have dreamt about the thousands of Iraqi's marching and burning US flags.Silly me.

Posted by: Raving Loon | Apr 10, 2007 11:14:02 AM&nbsp

We are so close but the Democratic controlled Congress wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory. It's just like Vietnam all over again and the Democrats want to blow it again! Listen to the Iraqi Prime Minister who has asked for U.S. forces to stay in place until Iraqi forces are ready to provide security throughout the country. He is their elected leader and wants us to stay. Already the Sunnis have lost Baghdad and will soon be forced to broker a political deal. The U.S. hasn't lost anything. The goal of the war was to get rid of Saddam and that has been accomplished. Now we will finish the job, 2008 election political posturing or no 2008 election political posturing. GO U.S. ARMED FORCES!

Posted by: N. Otter | Apr 10, 2007 11:25:23 AM&nbsp

DD- I hear you on those referendums-!

I believe the gaining confidence in US intentions train has left the station though.
The reason why this bill stinks is that it has all of that pork tied to it.. If I am an outsider looking in wait..come to think of it- I am! an outsider looking in.
SINCE I am an outsider looking in- my question is .. why is the bill NOT a clean bill... The only answer that makes sense is that in order to get a consensus from her party and borderline repubs - Spkr. Pelosi had to buy some of the votes. I am sure both Dem and Repubs had their votes paid for- but the fact is, an issue as compelling as when (if) a major military operation should end had to include earmarks before it would be supported- that is embarrasing.

Lets argue about whether we need a timeline or not- I personally think that a timeline is crazy but I agree it deserves a debate. Congress does not.

Posted by: heartburn | Apr 10, 2007 11:29:52 AM&nbsp

W doesn't want to set the timetable for US pullout. The Democrats want 3/2008 or 9/2008. But W has no choice because every Iraqi insurgent knows the date of US pullout: Nov., 2008.
The Democrats know that W will veto any of the timetable included bill. March, Sept. dates are irrelevant because the White house will have new democratic residence in Nov. 2008.

Posted by: Mike | Apr 10, 2007 11:33:51 AM&nbsp

Bush - "Iraq reinforcements working"

He must be the only who thought Baghdad John McToast strolled through Baghdad without body armor,100+ troops,attack helicopters and a security team to pre-sweep the area recently.

Easter Weekend - 10 US Troops Killed In Iraq

Posted by: John E | Apr 10, 2007 11:46:13 AM&nbsp

N. Otter:

You are right. PM Al-Maliki sure does want us to stay over there. You know why? He needs the muscle to back his political agenda. Who do you think is going through and taking out his enemies, the Sunni Militias? Who trains his government troops? The PM would sign a deal with the devil if it would keep him in office longer... We're in an unwinnable conflict. Time to cut losses and get the heck out of there. Let the UN step up to the plate for once.

Posted by: joshua | Apr 10, 2007 11:53:38 AM&nbsp

"The goal of the war was to get rid of Saddam and that has been accomplished"

Good grief!

Posted by: Bubba | Apr 10, 2007 11:55:22 AM&nbsp

In 2001 Congress was faced with a choice; to grant the President authority to pursue perpetrators of the 11SEP01 terrorist attack. They sided with the Executive. In 2002 the President made a choice and a case to execute a discretionary war in Iraq. In 2006 the We the People made a choice and seated representatives reflecting our support for the President's war. In 2007 the Congress is completing a funding bill that reflects the People's choice. The President, the Office not the man, now has a choice to accept the will of the People or act counter to it and degrade the military's capabilities by reprogramming funds to support an undesirable war. Check & Balance. Review the Constitution. This citizen will NOT lay the responsibility of being unprepared to defend this Republic due to the degradation of the military upon Congress as the President, the decider, hopes to frame the debate. For six years we've lived an Unchecked and Imbalanced government where the Congress panders to the Executive. The founders framed the Constitution with the promise of a perfect structure. They never promised a perfect execution. My great grand children will likely be paying for this adventure in Iraq, with interest, and they'll do it in a more competitive global market because all our money is being burned by the war and not funding an education system. Thank you G. W. Bush.

Posted by: T. W. Phung | Apr 10, 2007 12:01:00 PM&nbsp

Bush says his new "strategy" is working, yet it's too much of a burden to commit to bringing the troops home late next year.

Doesn't sound like Bush has as much faith in his "strategy" as he claims.

Posted by: bb | Apr 10, 2007 12:01:18 PM&nbsp

But if they think they are going to negotiate over timelines, Perino said, they are mistaken.

Because this administration does not negotiate period...it is my way or the highway.

Congress should stick to it's guns. No funding...oh well, maybe we should listen to the Iraqi people and leave.

Posted by: lochnessmonster | Apr 10, 2007 12:04:57 PM&nbsp

Joshua-

Maliki's political agenda? how can you have a political aganda when you aren't sure if you are going to have a government tomorrow?

We need to stay there until there is a government that can stand on it's own..

Iraqis risked their lives to vote - we owe them a chance to vote again...

Bubba- name anything.. vacations, marriages, careers, wars ( I know... that was hyperbolic, but fun) that started and followed the plan exactly as it was intended to finish? Do you think anyone planned for us to still be in Germany, Korea, Japan, The Balkans as we are now....??

Posted by: heartburn | Apr 10, 2007 12:22:44 PM&nbsp

Alternative caption:

"See, nothing up my sleeve"

Posted by: Bubba | Apr 10, 2007 12:24:07 PM&nbsp

Lets argue about whether we need a timeline or not- I personally think that a timeline is crazy but I agree it deserves a debate. Congress does not.
Posted by: heartburn | Apr 10, 2007 11:29:52 AM

Sounds like the Great Divider agrees with congress on this, time lines don't deserve any kind of debate.

Here's a thought for your time line debate heartburn:
1st I have to say I'm no fan of hard & fast time lines. Of course at the same time staying the course we've bumbled down for the last 4 years is sort of like repeatedly hitting yourself in the head with a rock & wondering why your getting a headache. Sorry, back to the point for your debate.

For the last four years we have had several joint military operations like the surge to gain control of Baghdad but when push came to shove the Iraqi government, police & military have ended up being pretty much AOL & once the surge or sweep ended things reverted back to a lawless state. Some would say that things have even degenerated further & further into chaos. Now, if the early reports right & the rhetoric from the Iraqi PM is to be believed this time, it seems that the Iraqi government might actually be serious about helping out in trying to control Baghdad. Some might say thats a sign the surge is working but why now, why this time & not all the others? My thought is that it might actually be the fear of us leaving that is driving them. Maybe time lines by themselves aren't the brightest idea but it is starting to look like the fear of them is driving the Iraqi government to take those steps that they have show us they don't really want to take to bring peace to their country. Just a thought.

Posted by: jj | Apr 10, 2007 12:33:41 PM&nbsp

Well, if there was a "central" command to all the insergent violence, wouldent they simply cease the violence until we pulled out, In two or three years, they could keep quiet and continue to gain support and save bullets so to speak, so they could then overthrow any government in place after we left, be it two or twenty years from now, In the mean time, lets pass some legislation to move forward and force corporations to convert to alternative fuels, to eliminate need for their oil, and turn them into the safe third world place they once were.....or nuke them either way works for me, or like dresden, raise every building with conventional weapons.

Posted by: thomas hurst | Apr 10, 2007 12:42:19 PM&nbsp

It seems to me we have two choices:
-Proceed without a timeline for withdrawal or requirements to meet benchmarks, like the President is doing. Everything in Iraq stays the same as it is now-and the USA remains in the middle of a Civil war until 2009.
-Set timelines and benchmarks & adhere to them. Maybe things get worse, if that is possible, but even so the USA would not be stuck in the middle of it. Maybe things even improve & the plan works out.

Personally, I'd take a gamble on the 2nd option.

The only defense for the 1st option is that the "bad guys" can just lay low and wait for the deadline to expire, then raise hell once the US is gone. This is faulty logic. The "bad guys" don't need a US set timeline to employ this strategy.

Posted by: TMOTTB | Apr 10, 2007 12:46:02 PM&nbsp

There's a certain poster on here whose only worried about the pork in the Congressional bill.

The pork makes up barely one percent of the bill,that's a weak argument since the GOP just about doubled our dept to nearly $10 trillion during the past six years,1% is an improvement.

Posted by: John E | Apr 10, 2007 12:46:03 PM&nbsp

jj-

Good thoughts- i wish you and I were able to sit down drink a coke and make the decisions...

Unfortunately we can't- our decisions are made in Novembers..

I can accept that the fear of impending timeline may be driving some of the change in Iraq you have to give some of the credit to the surge-
I am going to get creamed for this... ,maybe they are seeing that our leader finally has some backbone and is looking like he is 1. finally standing up to congress and 2. committing to a strategy that is viable and a general that looks like he gets it..

PS - the great divider tag is trite

Posted by: heartburn | Apr 10, 2007 12:47:56 PM&nbsp

Present Bush is taking all of us for granted. He wishes us keep depleting our resources to ground. Where as our competition (China, Russia, and India) economies are growing in double digits in past decade and we are stuck in Iraq with no sight of end to tragic mistake.

Posted by: Asgar Hussain | Apr 10, 2007 12:53:42 PM&nbsp

Comments are not posted immediately. We review them first in an effort to remove foul language, commercial messages, irrelevancies and unfair attacks. Thank you for your patience.